|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2286
   |
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Blam! wrote:Let me expand on the ground cam, and general aiming camera status.
I do in fact plan on putting in a ground camera when we are able to release our Bomber variant of the dropship, and we have been playing around with ideas on whether or not we allow passengers to use modules shared by a vehicle. There's positives and negatives for both and a bit of design logistics to take care of there.
The aiming camera on the dropship is also being worked on in general. I want to enable the camera to be more responsive to players' direct input while still allowing the camera to gently and seamlessly ease back to its neutral position when no input is provided (in case you were wondering, the reason for the ease is so that players don't have to fumble by manually moving it back to the neutral position). These improvements require code fixes that I am working directly with a programmer on (alas Blam! is a Game Designer ;) )
I noticed that there were still some people who weren't aware of this, so I'm making a thread devoted to it.
I can't fathom of why putting bombs on a Dropship, which I imagine will again result in a reduced passenger count, just like the ADS, and possibly even having less gunners, would be a good idea, especially as far as trying to provide any semblance of balance for the Dropship roles we have right now.
As someone who used to love piloting them back in Codex (spent most of Chromosome skilling into random stuff and being broke), the solution to providing Dropship pilots with something to do with their vehicles is not giving them a new role that let's them drop bombs.
Also, if nothing else, you're putting bombs on a vehicle that can hover in midair over an objective?
Really?
Further, I realize people will talk about how easy Dropships are to kill, so this couldn't be abused, but consider the DevBlog that was just released today.
Look at the amount of ISK Corporations are willing to put into capturing and holding Districts.
Do you honestly think they would even bat an eye about putting 2-3 of those things up in the air and using them to blap groups of infantry going near their objectives, no matter how much they get shot down? If anything, forcing the enemy team to switch to AV to try and kill the damn things will just make the work easier for your infantry.
On the subject of Fighters, deploying bombs has traditionally been the function of "fixed-wing aircraft" or "jets" in virtually every game I've seen them in.
The issue I see with putting bombs on Dropships is that that might be the start of a decision chain that leads to Fighters and other aircraft of that type being air-to-air only, like how Dice tried to design the jets in Battlefield 3.
Let us not forget that military aircraft were initially developed as a means of supporting ground forces, and continue to have that as their primary role to this day. Having a Fighter that can only shoot at other Fighters is annoying, but can be tolerated in a game that spawns vehicles at regular intervals for free.
What about Dust? Do you really think any Corporation is going to want to deploy an asset that's completely worthless for infantry support?
I don't see this ending well, even with considerable thought on the subject. The deployment of an asset like this seems to me to have the potential to release what will undoubtedly be the new flavor-of-the-month spam tactic, while leaving those of us who are looking to Spec into Fighters with an asset that no one will want us to use.
And current Dropship pilots still get the shaft when all is said and done.
Prioritize making the current Dropship roles rewarding, and especially giving points for transport and spawning, and you'll have a lot more happy Dropship pilots and infantry. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2290
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bump. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2290
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cy Clone1 wrote:how can I find the original statement?
Go to Dev Posts and search "Bomber". |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2292
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:I don't necessarily think that making dropships bomb would obsolete fighters, since fighters would be needed to protect friendly transportation and destroy enemy bombers. I also don't think bf3 made it jets anti air only, since 2 of the missile types are best for fighting ground vehicles and the actual gun is universally effective.
For my part, I think this represents moving in the direction of making more roles out of the same asset as opposed to making other assets or fixing the roles we have right now.
As far as bombs themselves, giving them to a vehicle that can hover, and thus completely remove the need to judge bombing runs in order to make them effective, seems a bit too faceroll to me.
I mean, if you consider the fact that a bomb, by its very nature, is a splash-damage based weapon, I think requiring the pilot to use an aircraft that can't hover, and thus requires him to calculate the trajectory of the weapon in order to use it properly, is going to be essential in ensuring we can have such a weapon without also having another riot on our hands. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2295
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
ladwar wrote:they should just make a bomber rather then fitting a DS to be a bomber. other bombers have tail gunner as well as front and wing gunners(old WWII models which are the popular models for games to copy) or the present day ones with frontal cannons without side gunners/tail. the DS don't fit because side(not wing) gunners are a must on them but no room for a tail.
and on an off topic rant, STOP SCRIPTED LIKES!!!!
The days of the "Strategic Bomber" are pretty much gone. My country is currently continuing to downscale its force of B-52s, for instance.
I think the Fighters, despite their name, will be able to fill this role just fine. You rarely see the use of larger bomber aircraft due to the prevalence of anti-air, and with the confirmation that Destroyer HAVs are coming as a dedicated AA vehicle, I think large bombers like you're thinking of would likely just get killed more than the Dropships we have right now.
Also, all our aircraft are VTOL and have to be sized so RDVs can carry them. Imagine an RDV trying to carry something the size of a B-29. The dumb thing would just keep smacking the aircraft into thing until it exploded.
loumanchew wrote:We already have 2 types of ships that are completely useless, expensive to run and non rewarding. Why oh why more content when the current content isnt even finished or balanced yet? 
Exactly!
If you want to make Dropship pilots happy, let them be useful in their current roles, don't add more while keeping the others broken. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2298
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:CCP Blam! wrote:
Further, I realize people will talk about how easy Dropships are to kill, so this couldn't be abused, but consider the DevBlog that was just released today.
Look at the amount of ISK Corporations are willing to put into capturing and holding Districts.
Do you honestly think they would even bat an eye about putting 2-3 of those things up in the air and using them to blap groups of infantry going near their objectives, no matter how much they get shot down? If anything, forcing the enemy team to switch to AV to try and kill the damn things will just make the work easier for your infantry.
It's not a matter of whether or not they'd bat an eye to readily deploy X amount of dropships it's how effective they would be once deployed. A corp can throw out as many dropships as they want but if the opposing team has any number of Forge Gunners or Rail Tanks at their disposal then doing so would just be a waste of time and resources. Dropships, in their current form, simply aren't worth deploying on any battlefield in any situation outside of getting Uplinks deployed in high positions. If I'm a corp leader who has the choices between deploying 5 dropships or 5 tanks at any given time you can bet I'll be going with the choice that gives me the most bang for my buck and with Rail type weapons the way they are right now going the dropship route would just be the equivalent of feeding the enemy team free SP. I really think you're making a big deal out of nothing, call me when Forges / Rail Tanks are addressed and Dropships have some means to redirect swarm fire and we can talk about the effectiveness of a Dropship type we still know next to nothing about.
Imagine putting 5 in the air, flying them up to the Flight Ceiling, and parking them in midair over those HAVs and Forge Gunners. If you want them to only carry bombs, you can leave the default turrets on them and fit nothing but defensive modules. You'd live more than long enough to throw out a few bombs before going down, and at that point you've likely pasted all infantry in the local area.
Vermaak Doe wrote:Also bombs don't conflict air to ground type weapons if their advantages amd disadvantages are prevalent.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Serimos Haeraven wrote:Oh CCP Blam... seeing this disheartens me more than anything i have seen before from CCP. His reply to my request about dropship updates didn't have any plans for bombers at all, and they said they would immediately work on the WP issue FIRST. Seriously, Logistic dropships are being left in the... dust.
I'd honestly love to be able to use them as transports, which is what I preferred doing in the past. I really hope they're still working on that. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2299
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:I mean that fighters could still perform against ground vehicles using another weapon type without making bomber dropships useless, if CCP did decide to include this "fighter bomber" variant, it should differ heavily from the bomber dropship so that neither becomes useless.
I'm saying scrap the idea of a bomber dropship entirely.
I don't even know where the idea came from, to be honest. There were quite a few people requesting a pilot-controlled turret, and they delivered on that. I don't recall many people asking to be able to strap bombs onto their transport aircraft.
I also think this what we could really use is some form of dedicated VTOL Gunship, and not just a Dropship with a turret on the front. I think if you give proper bonuses to Dropship pilots for the roles they fill right now, you won't have any complaints.
I'm coming at this from the standpoint that as a pilot, I'd like to see more asset variety like we've already been shown we'll have with ground vehicles, rather than a forest of Dropship variants. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2303
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:55:00 -
[8] - Quote
Skihids wrote:I'd like to see the justification for a bomb that can't fall all the way to the ground. That would be the most ludicrous way to limit the effectiveness of a bomber. Uh sorry, your bomb fell too far so it disabled itself!
The real limit would be in targeting accuracy. Those who actually fly know how small and indistinct targets appear from the flight celling. The pilot would need a ground spotter to be effective without a high zoom. Actually a bomber should have a variable zoom predictive bomb sight. They were invented decades ago and I can't see the idea being lost.
I really hope we don't end up with a cross-hair bombsight that is fixed 90 degrees from the bottom of the ship in such a way that a small bit of roll makes it useless for aiming. At the very least it should point directly below the ship no matter its orientation so we know where the bombs will fall.
Again, why have bombs on a Dropship at all? Why not put them on an aircraft that would make more sense to use them, and give pilots more options than the latest Dropship re-color? |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2303
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 20:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Skihids wrote:I'd like to see the justification for a bomb that can't fall all the way to the ground. That would be the most ludicrous way to limit the effectiveness of a bomber. Uh sorry, your bomb fell too far so it disabled itself!
The real limit would be in targeting accuracy. Those who actually fly know how small and indistinct targets appear from the flight celling. The pilot would need a ground spotter to be effective without a high zoom. Actually a bomber should have a variable zoom predictive bomb sight. They were invented decades ago and I can't see the idea being lost.
I really hope we don't end up with a cross-hair bombsight that is fixed 90 degrees from the bottom of the ship in such a way that a small bit of roll makes it useless for aiming. At the very least it should point directly below the ship no matter its orientation so we know where the bombs will fall. Again, why have bombs on a Dropship at all? Why not put them on an aircraft that would make more sense to use them, and give pilots more options than the latest Dropship re-color? Oh, I agree with you. If we are going to get it anyway I just don't want to see it delivered hopelessly broken. We don't need one more temptation for new players to throw away hard earned SP and ISK on junk only to quit DUST in frustration.
Agreed. I mean, just imagine what's going to happen when the Caldari Logistics suits get fixed. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2305
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 20:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:I mean that fighters could still perform against ground vehicles using another weapon type without making bomber dropships useless, if CCP did decide to include this "fighter bomber" variant, it should differ heavily from the bomber dropship so that neither becomes useless. I'm saying scrap the idea of a bomber dropship entirely. I don't even know where the idea came from, to be honest. There were quite a few people requesting a pilot-controlled turret, and they delivered on that. I don't recall many people asking to be able to strap bombs onto their transport aircraft. I also think this what we could really use is some form of dedicated VTOL Gunship, and not just a Dropship with a turret on the front. I think if you give proper bonuses to Dropship pilots for the roles they fill right now, you won't have any complaints. I'm coming at this from the standpoint that as a pilot, I'd like to see more asset variety like we've already been shown we'll have with ground vehicles, rather than a forest of Dropship variants. I think that the assault and bomber variants are merely placeholders until the light and heavy air vehicles are added, since the assault dropship would conflict a gunship, making the ADS useless because of the higher firepower and tank that the gunship should have. Also, a fighter would be much more suited for bombing since to do so properly requires getting in and out fast so the bomber isn't put at risk.
Honestly, if we're eventually going to be able to fire out of Dropships, as has been suggested, the Assault Dropship would still be a fine aircraft.
Honestly, even without being able to shoot from it, you figure you get the pilot turret, the two gunners, and maybe a pair of HMG Heavies to drop on a contested point while you strafe from above means that vehicle would still be a potent asset.
Also consider that a Gunship would be smaller, and thus more mobile, but also have less hitpoints. |
|
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2330
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 20:30:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:I mean that fighters could still perform against ground vehicles using another weapon type without making bomber dropships useless, if CCP did decide to include this "fighter bomber" variant, it should differ heavily from the bomber dropship so that neither becomes useless. I'm saying scrap the idea of a bomber dropship entirely. I don't even know where the idea came from, to be honest. There were quite a few people requesting a pilot-controlled turret, and they delivered on that. I don't recall many people asking to be able to strap bombs onto their transport aircraft. I also think this what we could really use is some form of dedicated VTOL Gunship, and not just a Dropship with a turret on the front. I think if you give proper bonuses to Dropship pilots for the roles they fill right now, you won't have any complaints. I'm coming at this from the standpoint that as a pilot, I'd like to see more asset variety like we've already been shown we'll have with ground vehicles, rather than a forest of Dropship variants. I think that the assault and bomber variants are merely placeholders until the light and heavy air vehicles are added, since the assault dropship would conflict a gunship, making the ADS useless because of the higher firepower and tank that the gunship should have. Also, a fighter would be much more suited for bombing since to do so properly requires getting in and out fast so the bomber isn't put at risk. Honestly, if we're eventually going to be able to fire out of Dropships, as has been suggested, the Assault Dropship would still be a fine aircraft. Honestly, even without being able to shoot from it, you figure you get the pilot turret, the two gunners, and maybe a pair of HMG Heavies to drop on a contested point while you strafe from above means that vehicle would still be a potent asset. Also consider that a Gunship would be smaller, and thus more mobile, but also have less hitpoints. Well there's always the possibility for a gunship to go into an attack helicopter style role or more of a heavy air support vehicle like an Ac130 so I won't delve too much into that but I see 2 gunners and a well rounded group of four as a bit more valuable than the setup an Ads can do. I could see the Ads shining at supporting small groups, which was a more valuable attribute before squad sizes were raised.
It can still fill a role with new assets released, though it may need some tweaking.
I would LOVE to see a large variety of aircraft to choose from in the future, but there are of course more important things to be worked on right now.
That said, I don't think focusing on those more important things should come at the cost of potential imbalance or shafting pilots any more than we already have been. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2402
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 07:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
TEXA5 HiTM4N wrote:I think we should stop giving feedback to blam and wolfman. they always ignore us and give us something no one asked for. At least foxfour and his team listen.
Cutting off the feedback won't help anything, man.
If anything, that might make this even more likely to go the way I fear. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2423
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 00:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
TEXA5 HiTM4N wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:TEXA5 HiTM4N wrote:I think we should stop giving feedback to blam and wolfman. they always ignore us and give us something no one asked for. At least foxfour and his team listen. Cutting off the feedback won't help anything, man. If anything, that might make this even more likely to go the way I fear. I agree. I am just fed up with the guys that handle the balance of this game.
I'm starting to understand that frustration, but if the new work on Planetary Conquest is any indication, they're really working at trying to improve. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
2425
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 06:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:i wouldnt worry. it's vehicle, and therefore wont be very usefull
Unlimited free ****** vehicles for everyone.
Instant balance. |
|
|
| |
|